He wouldn't be able to get away with a quiet wedding, then a bigger one. He would have to do the full blown wedding like his father did.
IF it could happen, if a child was born, then yes I presume it would be in line for the throne.
The Dutch, tend to have civil ceremonies then religious ones i think.

So long as he had the Queen's permission he and Kate could have a small registry office wedding but they wouldn't then have the big church wedding, unless like Charles they had a blessing the same day.

If they are to move together to Wales this year they will either be married in a full blown affair or not be married and take the risk of a child being conceived (which I am sure they already take). In that case we would probably see a very quick announcement of an engagement and a quick wedding, on a smaller scale due to the speed as they would really like them to be married for close to the 9 months as possible. Afterall this child will be the future monarch, as, if a girl, the law will be changed to allow equal inheritance rights for women to the throne, and I hope to all titles.

That is, I think, due to the fact that getting married in a church doesn't count as officially married (in the sense of the state), so you first have to have a civil one and later you can have a religios one just like it is in Germany.

So I guess religious weddings count as official in England because I've never seen any British royal having a civil ceremony (apart from Charles and Camilla)?!

There no other BRF members that have been married in a civil ceremony. The legality of C and C's wedding was questioned due to the 1836(?) Act specifying Royal marriages had to be religious. I would bet the ranch that William and Kate have a full blown Cathedral wedding.

There no other BRF members that have been married in a civil ceremony. The legality of C and C's wedding was questioned due to the 1836(?) Act specifying Royal marriages had to be religious. I would bet the ranch that William and Kate have a full blown Cathedral wedding.

Lord Nicholas Windsor married in a civil ceremony in October 2006, to make his marriage legal in the UK. His religious marriage in November 2006 in the Vatican did not make his marriage legal in the UK, to make sure that it was legal he married in a civil ceremony first. He is a member of the BRF (great-grandson of King George V). It has therefore been established that British royals can indeed marry civilly in the UK.

There no other BRF members that have been married in a civil ceremony. The legality of C and C's wedding was questioned due to the 1836(?) Act specifying Royal marriages had to be religious. I would bet the ranch that William and Kate have a full blown Cathedral wedding.

Charles and Camilla's wedding was still legal, due to the fact that they are officially married.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

Lord Nicholas Windsor married in a civil ceremony in October 2006, to make his marriage legal in the UK. His religious marriage in November 2006 in the Vatican did not make his marriage legal in the UK, to make sure that it was legal he married in a civil ceremony first. He is a member of the BRF (great-grandson of King George V). It has therefore been established that British royals can indeed marry civilly in the UK.

But he lost his rights to the British throne in 2001, when he converted to the Catholic Church, he only married civily in the UK, so he was officially married. He also married in the Vatican first, then the UK.

Charles and Camilla's wedding was still legal, due to the fact that they are officially married.

Well, that's debatable. Why are they trying to keep the legal advises they received about the validity of this marriage secret if there is nothing to hide?
I'm not a conspiracy nut but well there are dissident voices among constitutional experts.

Well, that's debatable. Why are they trying to keep the legal advises they received about the validity of this marriage secret if there is nothing to hide?
I'm not a conspiracy nut but well there are dissident voices among constitutional experts.

Because why should the world be allowed to know about what advise they had for there marriage? Just because they are royals, doesn't allow us to spy in every inch of their life.
There happy, the people that dig up theories are usually papers who fawned over Diana or ones that are bored. IMO

^^
I don't think this is the place to discuss this nor do I know very much about this matter, but if law experts are not sure about the constitutional validity of the marriage I think that this is not the case of people being bored or that they are fans of Diana, imo.

Well, that's debatable. Why are they trying to keep the legal advises they received about the validity of this marriage secret if there is nothing to hide?
I'm not a conspiracy nut but well there are dissident voices among constitutional experts.

It isn't Charles and Camilla who have ruled that the advice given to the Lord Chancellor be kept secret until after Charles dies but the Courts. It wasn't Charles that asked for it. It was a judge that denied a freedom of information request to see the advice given to the Lord Chancellor.

That advice will have included opinions that Charles could and couldn't marry in a registry office which we know as that point was made clear at the time - that there were arguments both ways. Based on the advice he received the Lord Chancellor ruled that it was legal for them to marry in a registry office. What the exact advice was - the wording of that advice and the arguments for and against in that advice isn't known and that is what is being kept secret.

The marriage is legal as there hasn't been a full blown challenge in a court but there were some papers lodged on the day arguing that it wasn't legal which were thrown out.

Do any of you really beleive that the Queen, Archbishop of Canterbury and PM would all attend the blessing knowing that the marriage wasn't legal? I don't and they would also have been privy to the advice given which formed the basis of the decision.

There were three Acts of Parliament that had to be considered - the first was the Act in the 19th C about marriage which said that royals had to marry in a Church. Then there was the 1949(?) Marriage Act that made registry office marriages legal but said something about the status of royals not changing but...in 2000 there is the Human Rights Act which overrules both of those by saying that everyone has the right to marry. Without the Human Rights Act the marriage would be definitely illegal but with the Human Rights Act the marriage in a registry office became legal.

In addition if the advice given was that Charles couldn't marry in a registry office then we know that he could go to Scotland and marry there in a church as Anne had done.

Charles marriage in the registry office also made it possible for later royals to do so as it set the precedent so if Charles' marriage is ruled illegal then Lord Nicholas Windsor's marriage wouldn't be legal and his descendents wouldn't be in the line of succession (although I am not convinced that the Vatican service isn't recognised in Britain anyway).

Constitutional experts always disagree on matters. The person receiving that advice from a range of experts then makes a ruling which is legal until successfully challenged in the courts where both sides would put their arguments and the courts would then rule whether the Lord Chancellor, in this case, or others in other cases, made the right decision. This is the same thing with many legal matters - differing opinions and advice given by different legal experts and the recipient makes their decision based on that advice and until a court makes a ruling that advice is the legal one.

^^
I don't think this is the place to discuss this nor do I know very much about this matter, but if law experts are not sure about the constitutional validity of the marriage I think that this is not the case of people being bored or that they are fans of Diana, imo.

What you have to remember is that many experts are saying it is legal and others are saying it isn't. It isn't as if all the experts are saying it isn't a legal marriage and the Lord Chancellor overruled them. There are some arguments both ways - but considering all the people who attended the blessing after the marriage I have no doubts that it is a legal marriage and would be ruled as such if anyone took a formal challenge to the High Court (there were some challenges that were ruled invalid on the day).

^^
I don't have any idea on this topic as I only follow P. William and P. Harry, nor I am very interested on C&C; I was only trying to say that not everything that is said against both of them is because the people saying those things are fans of Diana. If it's legal good for them

Iluvbertie, was your post meant to be a counter-argument? Because I can't see how anything you wrote contradict my original post. We both seem to agree that there is no consensus among the experts, which means to me that the issue is open for debate (although I personally have no interest in engaging in the actual debate).
I brought up the freedom of information request simply to illustrates that the issue isn't dealt with in a straightforward and transparent manner.
lumutqueen, with all due respect, if you think the issue of the legality of a royal marriage is a private matter I don't think you understand what a monarchy is at all.

It's so much easier to get married in the United States. You just get a marriage licence, find a witness, then get a judge or a priest and your good to go.

That's true. As long as your license was filed and all the paperwork signed, you can either marry civilly (by a judge/justice of the peace) or religiously (priest/rabbi/pastor/imam) and it's all legally-binding.

__________________"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "

lumutqueen, with all due respect, if you think the issue of the legality of a royal marriage is a private matter I don't think you understand what a monarchy is at all.

What a nice comment.
I understand the monarchy very well thank you, i just think that even the royal family should be allowed some privacy especially after all the press have done to Charles and Camilla.

But he lost his rights to the British throne in 2001, when he converted to the Catholic Church, he only married civily in the UK, so he was officially married. He also married in the Vatican first, then the UK.

Lord Nicholas Windsor lost his place in the line of succession but he is still a member of the BRF. The same with HRH Prince Michael of Kent and that's the point I was trying to make. The statement that 'no member of the BRF has ever married in a civil ceremony" is wrong.

Lord Nicholas married FIRST in the UK in October 2006 in a civil ceremony, that made his marriage legal in the UK. Then a few weeks later in November 2006 he married religiously in The Vatican.

Quote "Because I can't see how anything you wrote contradict my original post. We both seem to agree that there is no consensus among the experts, which means to me that the issue is open for debate " unQuote

To make the issue simple, the highest legal authority in the UK, the Lord Chancellor ruled that the marriage of Charles and Camilla is legal, therefore it is legal! There is no debate! Armchair experts can prattle on about it, but the fact remains it is a legal marriage!

What does this have to do with William and Kate?! I, for one, am tired of reading about everyone else but William and Kate and Their engagement.. Am I on the wrong thread??
My apologies if I sound snarky...